There is QUITE a difference between a Mod and a mere scold...
Posted on 10/28/2008 5:54:24 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON—A week from today, Americans will pick a new president, but a surprising beneficiary may be off the ballot: Mitt Romney.
With polls in key states forecasting a comfortable victory by Sen. Barack Obama and fellow Democrats, Republicans may find themselves booted out of the White House, shoved further into the minority in Congress and marginalized in the powerhouse of Washington.
If Sen. John McCain loses next Tuesday, Romney could be well positioned to rise as a leader of the Republican Party to guide conservatives through a few years in the political wilderness and a favorite for the GOP presidential nomination come 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
And I'm not sure why you posted this.
Just WHERE did I indicate I was offended?
There is QUITE a difference between a Mod and a mere scold...
Let's look at those two social issues you've sandwiched in the middle, for his true positions:
Embryonic stem cell research:
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002,...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004:...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research
Federal marriage amendment
Yes, since at least 2004 he’s been in support of it. But other sources has also said he’s in favor of letting the states decide for themselves on this issue…as if two non-Bay State homosexuals marrying in Massachusetts won’t potentially allow the courts to redefine marriage in those states where they live.
How is protecting marriage at the fed level but leaving it up for grabs at the state level consistent?
To use another example from history: Candidate R wants slavery legalized at the fed level. A dozen years later, he does a u-turn: No slavery at the fed level. One year beyond that, he takes a new position: “OK, if a ‘free’ state wants to become a ‘slave’ state, so be it.” (Question: is this candidate in favor of slavery or against it?)
I said, “DO NOT POST TO ME.”
ONE FINAL WARNING.
Sorry, polling data, for example, from Gallup in Feb '07 doesn't bear out your claim.
Gallup Feb '07 data said that "conservative" voters were 9% more likely to vote for an LDS POTUS candidate than "liberal" voters; and 11% more likely than "moderate" voters.
In addition, only 11% of its expanded polling sample that month said, "No" that they would not vote for an LDS POTUS candidate.
Of them, more than half of them couldn't vote for Romney in the primary (in most states) because they were either Dems, Independents or other third-party.
More than half of the remaining percentage didn't vote at all because more than half of GOP voters stay home in primaries.
So, now that we're down to just a few percentage points (which means we're well beyond the core voters now), the "moderates" were 11% less favorable to an LDS POTUS candidate than "conservatives"--so why do the "conservatives" take all the whack from others?
(Elsie, we really need your middle moniker name, along with your last moniker name so that when “final warnings” are issued followed by “final, final warnings” we could also hear (for example): “Elsie Elf Elephant, I won’t tell you again...”...Otherwise, it just becomes impossible to be authoritative against you :) ).
Hey, this thread is public. The convos are public. If you want a private one, hit the private reply button.
Hey, Mitt. Do you still use illegal criminal aliens
as servants in your Belmont, NH, and La Jolla mansions?
No thanks.
Didn’t want him this year, won’t want him in 4 more.
Hey, what you do is you post this stuff in news/activism and in the title, you put (NOBODY BUT MITT SUPPORTERS ALLOWED).....That'll fix it.
From the American Spectator,
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th."
Romney has kept a low profile nationally since being denied the vice presidential nomination. He is currently traveling for the National Republican Congressional Committee in support of some House members, and has attended events for a handful of other House members who have sought his support, but he has traveled little for the McCain-Palin ticket. "He said the only time he'd travel for us is if we assured him that national cameras would be there," says a McCain campaign communications aide. "He's traveled to Nevada and a couple other states for us. That's about it."
Should McCain-Palin not win next week, Romney is expected to mount another presidential run, though it isn't clear that he has handled himself particularly well since losing the nomination. He failed to support or espouse conservative positions on the economic bailout bill in an effective or meaningful way, and he has turned down opportunities to endorse and work for conservative candidates in House or Senate seats unless they were assured of winning.
The most glaring oversight was Romney's refusal to do a phone recording for Massachusetts Republican Jeff Beatty, who is challenging Sen. John Kerry. "Mitt supposedly cares about Massachusetts, but won't even return phone calls asking for help," says a conservative working for Beatty in Boston. "It's a tough race, but the least he could do is help. He's showing his true colors."
Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a "diva" and was going off message intentionally. The former and current Romney supporters further are pushing Romney supporters for key Republican jobs, including head of the Republican National Committee."
Conservatives need a deeper bench. Same ol’, same ol’.
You and your group of bigots just don’t get it, do you?
I DON’T WANT TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH YOU EVER!
Get it?
SOMEone is having a BAD day!
"Keep this up and I will NOT be responsible for my actions!!!"
Sounds like a LIBERAL threat.
You and your group...??? Sounds like someone is bigoted all right, and it isn’t greyfoxx39.
Seriously though, thanks to people like you we've got the presidential nominee we deserve. Congratulations.
Way to go -- you took the bait and fell into the MSM divide and conquer trap. Anything to distract us from defeating Obama NOW. Good work.
To: Mitt Romney; DiogenesisYet another example of people not believing what people actually said using their own words.
It may be a stretch but MR supporters remind me of Barry the Marxists supports...don't believe their own ears and eyes when it come to the truth about their candidate. You betcha!
92 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:22:10 AM by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.